Servant or Will?

http://www.cneuroscience.org/Topics/Will/Quantum_Free_Will.htm#John1

"We hold, therefore, that free-will comes on the scene at the same moment as reason .... And if this is so, free-will must necessarily be very closely related to reason. For either man is an irrational being, or, if he is rational, he is master of his acts and endowed with free-will. Hence, also creatures without reason do not enjoy free-will: for nature leads them rather than they nature, and so they do not oppose the natural appetite, but as soon as their appetite longs after anything they rush headlong after it. But man, being rational, leads nature rather than nature him, and so when he desires aught he has the power to curb his appetite or to indulge as he pleases. Hence also creatures devoid of reason are the subjects neither of praise nor blame, while man is the subject of both praise and blame."

Originally posted by ChessJester
That is an invalid statement.

Is there then a freedom of choice?

I have experimented with this, and yes, yes there is free will.


Your choices (free will) can drastically effect your future... and its like a rolling ball, once you make choices in a certain direction you gain momentum in that direction and it becomes harder to make choices in di f neuroplasticity... the brain not making new neurons, but rather, re-connecting old ones.

Wow, my "neruological networks actually dictate the chemicals produced". That must mean my neruological networks have free will. Wait but hang on
these neruological networks are also made of chemicals. Ratz!

EDIT: In no way does this entail freedom of choice. In fact, it negates it. If the free will you describe relies on freedom of choice, there is no free will since it is obviously determined by chemicals (ignoring QM of course, because this would then entail that free will is random).

Originally posted by ChessJester
http://www.cneuroscience.org/Topics/Will/Quantum_Free_Will.htm#John1

"We hold, therefore, that free-will comes on the scene at the same moment as reason .... And if this is so, free-will must necessarily be very closely related to reason. For either man is an irrational being, or, if he is rational, he is master of his acts and endowed with free-will. ...[text shortened]... the subjects neither of praise nor blame, while man is the subject of both praise and blame."

Quantum Mechanics does not allow for free will. If (as you say) free will requires freedom of action then QM does accommodate for this. However, free will entail the "freedom of choice". QM indeterminacy essentially describes the collapse of the wave function which gives rise to freedom of action. However, it does not allow for freedom of choice because the collapse of the wave function is random and we know our choices are not random. Arguing with QM is absurd.

Originally posted by Conrau K
There is no free will!

Then it is not by any intellectual processes that you have reached that conclusion; logic is merely an illusion and abstract thought a mirage caused by the random arrangement of atoms in your brain.

Congratulations you have solved the mystery of all mysteries. Pack up and go home, since there is no point in continuing the discussion... oh, I forgot... you have no choice in whether you can go home or not, your reply to this post is mere random verbiage; our discussion the regurgitations from some quantum computer of which our minds are merely small cogs of a much larger machine.

Our legal system is flawed since we are punishing the poor wretch who had no control over his/her actions; but then the legal system is dictated by some greater non-rational power which infused the ill-fated idea into some helpless philosopher who himself was under the illusion that they were thinking profound thoughts.

If there is no free will, then this discussion is pointless, since our banter is like a ping-pong ball, stuck in an endless loop of rebound after rebound, helplessly at the mercy of the cosmic bat, which has neither reason nor logic, merely random cause and effect which itself has no direction or purpose.

Originally posted by Halitose
Then it is not by any intellectual processes that you have reached that conclusion; logic is merely an illusion and abstract thought a mirage caused by the random arrangement of atoms in your brain.

Congratulations you have solved the mystery of all mysteries. Pack up and go home, since there is no point in continuing the discussion... oh, I forgot... yo ...[text shortened]... ither reason nor logic, merely random cause and effect which itself has no direction or purpose.

Then it is not by any intellectual processes that you have reached that conclusion; logic is merely an illusion and abstract thought a mirage caused by the random arrangement of atoms in your brain.

Your so clever Hal! I'm so stupid. I should have realised that free will entails logic. Of course! If I dont have free will then I can't have arrived at my conclusion via intellectual prcesses. God work hal. 🙄
Silly me forgetting about evolutionary processes, blah, blah, blah, that explain the existence of logic.

I didn't realise how stupid I am (does that mean I have no free will?), I always thought that law served to rehabilitate criminals and deter future crime. But no, our christian legal system which believes in repentance and is against the maxim 'an eye for an eye...' would of course resort to punishment.

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Then it is not by any intellectual processes that you have reached that conclusion; logic is merely an illusion and abstract thought a mirage caused by the random arrangement of atoms in your brain.

Your so clever Hal! I'm so stupid. I should have realised that free will entails logic. Of course! If I dont have free will then I can't have arrived ...[text shortened]... ainst the maxim 'an eye for an eye...' would of course resort to punishment.

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄[/b]

This is going to be good. Your dull sarcasm notwithstanding, please give a defense of your reasonable logic. And before you start using reason, just check the circularity of your lunch-induced brain-coughs.

Sorry for the insults; I couldn't help it. I've just had a Twinkie and it screwed around with some of the atoms in my brain.

Originally posted by Halitose
This is going to be good. Your dull sarcasm notwithstanding, please give a defense of your reasonable logic. And before you start using reason, just check the circularity of your lunch-induced brain-coughs.

Sorry for the insults; I couldn't help it. I've just had a Twinkie and it screwed around with some of the atoms in my brain.

Logic is not predicated on free will. I dont see why you think that. Evolution provides an explanation of the development of logic that does not presuppose free will. I dont know why you make the connection.

The definition of free will we are using is that free will entails freeom of action (I can do A or B at time t) however a purely logical creature could only act according to his logic. Given our definition of free will (a libertarian one) the two are incompatible (even mutually exclusive).

Originally posted by Conrau K
Logic is not predicated on free will. I dont see why you think that. Evolution provides an explanation of the development of logic that does not presuppose free will. I dont know why you make the connection.

The definition of free will we are using is that free will entails freeom of action (I can do A or B at time t) however a purely logical creature c ...[text shortened]... definition of free will (a libertarian one) the two are incompatible (even mutually exclusive).

Free will entails freedom of thought (I can think A or B at time t).

If there's no free will and our neural processes are results of random natural atom oscillations and the culmination of random genetic variation, then you should have no reason to take your reasoning (or logic) seriously -- your mind is an amalgamation of non-rational elements passed through a random-engine -- hardly the stuff profound thought is made of.

Originally posted by Halitose
Free will entails freedom of thought (I can think A or B at time t).

If there's no free will and our neural processes are results of random natural atom oscillations and the culmination of random genetic variation, then you should have no reason to take your reasoning (or logic) seriously -- your mind is an amalgamation of non-rational elements passed through a random-engine -- hardly the stuff profound thought is made of.

Is the word 'radnom' in vogue now? It would certainly explain your predilection for it. I dont see how neural processes must be random if there is no free will. If they were, I'm sure evolution 😕 would select against it. We also often identify logic and the intellect with the brain (which is made of chemicals). So I still dont see the connection.

There are of course limitation in adopting a purely biological outlook on logic and the intellect (i.e. mistakes or errors in chemicals which result in faulty reasoning; the same objection might be made to a simply immaterial intellect). But this doesn't imply that logic (or reason or rationale) requires free will.

Originally posted by Halitose
Free will entails freedom of thought (I can think A or B at time t).

If there's no free will and our neural processes are results of random natural atom oscillations and the culmination of random genetic variation, then you should have no reason to take your reasoning (or logic) seriously -- your mind is an amalgamation of non-rational elements passed through a random-engine -- hardly the stuff profound thought is made of.

Free will entails freedom of thought (I can think A or B at time t).

Respectfully, I disagree. I say this because we are currently working under a libertarian definition of free will, resembling something like the following: consider some fixed state of the world at the moment just before time t; suppose I will act A at time t; then free will exists just in case the possibility exists at time t that I could will act B instead. But here's the problem I have with this definition and your line of thought: my willing act A is either caused (in terms of antecedent causal sufficiency) or it is uncaused. If it is caused, then there is no possibility at time t that I could will act B, and consequently, free will does not exist. Thus, this type of free will exists only if my willings are uncaused, or random. Since in that case, my willings are not caused by anything at all; my psychological states, my character, my beliefs, and my motivations are all completely irrelevant with respect to the content of my willings. The only thing that this type of free will would seem to entail is that our willings are random. That does not align with your definition above of 'freedom of thought'.

In a framework of compatibilist free will, your arguments will make a whole lot more sense. My opinion is that we really need to put to rest the sad illusion that libertarian free will constitutes anything resembling 'free will', if for no other reason than it is silly to think that free will consists of random willings. Some determination is required for free will because for willings to be properly referenced as my own, it is requisite that they be sufficiently caused by me.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Free will entails freedom of thought (I can think A or B at time t).

Respectfully, I disagree. I say this because we are currently working under a libertarian definition of free will, resembling something like the following: consider some fixed state of the world at the moment just before time t; suppose I will act A at time t; then free ...[text shortened]... o be properly referenced as my own, it is requisite that they be sufficiently caused by me.[/b]

(this subjct does appear alarmingly often does it?) I think most people believe in a libertarian free will- which is obviously absurd. However, what I find interesting is moral responibility. If your actions are dtermined by your will (and thus you could not act otherwise), are you accoutnable for your will? Are you morally responsible for your own will? (i guess we disagree implacably but it would be good if someone could debate on that further)

This is probably a digression so in answer to Chessjesters question: [if there is a God] are we are servants of God or are we his will? Well, if we dont have a libertarian free will, I would think both are reasonable together.

Originally posted by Conrau K
(this subjct does appear alarmingly often does it?) I think most people believe in a libertarian free will- which is obviously absurd. However, what I find interesting is moral responibility. If your actions are dtermined by your will (and thus you could not act otherwise), are you accoutnable for your will? Are you morally responsible for your own will? (i ...[text shortened]... will? Well, if we dont have a libertarian free will, I would think both are reasonable together.

this subjct does appear alarmingly often does it?

Yes. The problem, I think, is that the libertarian notion of free will is taken as the default in the common mind. I find that quite unfortunate.

I agree that moral responsibility (under compatibilism) is an area that could generate a wealth of interesting debate. Maybe we could start a thread on that down the road.

In terms of the God talk, it would seem to me that God, if He's in His proper senses, would desire for us to be 'genuine sources' of our own actions. Now, as you have stated before, it is not clear at first glance what that means. That would be good kindling for the compatibilism/responsibility thread.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Is the word 'radnom' in vogue now? It would certainly explain your predilection for it. I dont see how neural processes must be random if there is no free will. If they were, I'm sure evolution 😕 would select against it. We also often identify logic and the intellect with the brain (which is made of chemicals). So I still dont see the connection.

There ...[text shortened]... l intellect). But this doesn't imply that logic (or reason or rationale) requires free will.

Radnom? You mean random? It's not me who's obsessed with it, it's the atheist, evolutionary-type who keep stressing the "non-intelligent and random processes that drive our destiny". Pardon me for being the one to point it out when it doesn't suit you.

Perhaps this is an argument from ignorance but I can't see how logically the antecedent of Reason* can be anything but Reason. If you claim (as you do) that our Reason stems from non-intelligent, non-reasoning, random cause and effect, then logically the consequent of these causes would be the same. You have no grounds to elevate your Reason to anything more profound.

* I define Reason from the 1913 Webster's as:

The faculty or capacity of the human mind by which it is distinguished from the intelligence of the inferior animals; the higher as distinguished from the lower cognitive faculties, sense, imagination, and memory, and in contrast to the feelings and desires. Reason comprises conception, judgment, reasoning, and the intuitional faculty. Specifically, it is the intuitional faculty, or the faculty of first truths, as distinguished from the understanding, which is called the discursive or ratiocinative faculty.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Free will entails freedom of thought (I can think A or B at time t).

Respectfully, I disagree. I say this because we are currently working under a libertarian definition of free will, resembling something like the following: consider some fixed state of the world at the moment just before time t; suppose I will act A at time t; then free o be properly referenced as my own, it is requisite that they be sufficiently caused by me.[/b]

My bad. I decided not to correct K with his perception of my views on free will since it was his stance under scrutiny, not mine. I try not to bite at all the red herrings. 😏 I maintain a compatibilist view of free will, where our decisions are dictated by our essence: character, beliefs, motivation, personality, etc.

Edit: Yes. By "essence" I mean "soul".

Originally posted by Halitose
Radnom? You mean random? It's not me who's obsessed with it, it's the atheist, evolutionary-type who keep stressing the "non-intelligent and random processes that drive our destiny". Pardon me for being the one to point it out when it doesn't suit you.

Perhaps this is an argument from ignorance but I can't see how logically the antecedent of Reason* can ...[text shortened]... hed from the understanding, which is called the discursive or ratiocinative faculty.[/i]

So really what your saying is that reasoning cannot be associated with the brain? I'm sure many neurologists would agree. 😉

Mutations are of course random, but evolution is not. It goes in a predictable direction determined by the environment. In the case of humans, by the need to understand the environment (and I realise I have given an extremely condensed version).